GalantVR4.org The Mitsubishi Galant VR-4 Forum
Galant VR-4 Forums » Galant VR-4 » Technical Discussions » Re: A different engine configuration ... constructive comments please!
Previous thread Next thread

Re: A different engine configuration ... constructive comments please!


cheekychimp Galant VR4.org Moderator
Director of Housing and Urban Development, and carbon/kevlar balls


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 923705 posted 08/18/10 12:17 PM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
Quote:

So you're talking about using Mitsu pistons and an 88mm 4g63 crank in a G4CS block with 156mm rods to make a long-rod 2.0L? Basically not worrying about displacement gains but just banking on the longevity of the long-rod?




Yes, exactly! Believe me, I do understand everything you have said about displacement etc but you have to remember I've done all of this on my other car with the FFWD Connection 2.3 stroker with aluminium rods and ceramic coated pistons etc etc etc. I want this engine to start and live forever because that one inevitably won't. Not if I'm going to wreak every last cent of enjoyment out of it

I appreciate your advice on the other issues. I may well PM you for help when I get started. I keep looking at Magnus' dry sump kit. MUST resist the dark side!!!!



Getting old sucks ... but it sure beats the alternative !!!

Posts: 7331 | From: East Sussex, U.K. | Member Since: 04/19/04 | IP: (116.48.7.162) | Report this post to a Moderator

belize1334
well bread and nobly conceived
1334/2000


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 923714 posted 08/18/10 12:39 PM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
Remember, also, that I've never built an engine. I'm happy to contribute whatever I can to the topic but I'm not an expert. All I have is a strong background in math and HOURS UPON HOURS of internet research on the various engines that others have built.



Roger B. Scott
'91 Belize Green

Posts: 3312 | From: Dundee, Scotland, UK | Member Since: 11/18/03 | IP: (174.45.93.14) | Report this post to a Moderator

cheekychimp Galant VR4.org Moderator
Director of Housing and Urban Development, and carbon/kevlar balls


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 923721 posted 08/18/10 12:48 PM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
At least you are honest about that and more than likely when you do actually build an engine it will turn out to be an absolute stonker!

I was just thinking actually. If you did go to the trouble of sleeving the G4CS block and using a much better cylinder wall material as Toybreaker suggested; I wonder if there is enough room to make the sleeves thick enough that you could rebore to 87mm at a later stage and build the 2.1 litre super long rod anyway?



Getting old sucks ... but it sure beats the alternative !!!

Posts: 7331 | From: East Sussex, U.K. | Member Since: 04/19/04 | IP: (116.48.7.162) | Report this post to a Moderator

belize1334
well bread and nobly conceived
1334/2000


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 923756 posted 08/18/10 03:25 PM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
I was actually unable to get a straight answer on this when I was talking to the machinist. Once a block has been sleeved, how big can it be bored before the sleeves become too brittle to hold-up. What is the minimum wall thickness for the sleeve itself. Perhaps the block could be bored to 87mm and then a sleeve inserted which would subsequently be bored down to 85mm giving a 1mm wall thickness. Then if you decided you didn't like it the sleeve could be pulled leaving you with an 87mm bore block. Would the sleeve be happy with that thin a wall? What about 2mm wall thickness. Would the block be happy at 88mm bore? That's 0.060 overbore for G4CS which is 0.120 overbore for a 4g63... seems a bit thin between the cylinders... I just don't know about that...



Roger B. Scott
'91 Belize Green

Posts: 3312 | From: Dundee, Scotland, UK | Member Since: 11/18/03 | IP: (153.90.194.143) | Report this post to a Moderator

misterfixit
Victory Runner


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 923776 posted 08/18/10 05:13 PM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
I doubt you could pull the sleeve without trashing the bore it was in. Manufacturers will generally offer up to 1mm over on dia (mitsu offer 0.25/0.50/0.75 and 1.00 over). For the motorcycle industry its also common for the aftermarket to offer these sizes and additionally +1.5m and +2mm. In the car world i'd assume this is the case but i'll do some digging to confirm. Assuming the G4cs block is the same length as a 4g63 and tha water cavities are the same id say we could happily over bore a 4g63 block to take g4cs pistons.

Didn't the later spacewagons come with a 4g64 sohc 16v motor?

As for the stability of the pistons in the bore. this has lots to do with the size and area of the skirt, and also with the piston pin offset.

I do not understand the issue with not wanting to use wiseco forged pistons I have one in two of my dirt bikes and they are fine. If the piston pin is offset in the correct direction and the skirt is adequate as long as the hone on the bore is correct there should be no issue. The hiootter turbo engine is supposed to run with more clearance to the piston so youdon't get sticking on the skirt.

But the material in the forged piston is more homogenious with a much better grain structure. A cast piston will be more porous and less well controlled material wise. Also you have to make sure the correct rings are used (hi chrome for running with cast iron bores) and visa versa for plated but life should be simple with these engines no funky platings to deal with.

I think there can be alot of variability between machine shops and machine house quality. The bore is only going to perform as well as it was made.

On the sleeving answer no one can really know except the guy who drew it as to how much safety factor was built into the wall thicknesses. but if the cores used to cast it are the same from 4g64 to 4g63 then we can safely go 1mm over the 4g64 standard size.

Rich



92 UK 1800 GALANT DD
88 JDM E39A GALANT VR-4, running. But only just.
93 CB4A --- rewound
91 PDM GTI Resurection project. Aborted
Stuff Index

Posts: 1548 | From: Midlands, UK | Member Since: 08/04/04 | IP: (83.67.97.128) | Report this post to a Moderator

Romanova
the coolest person to ever post in the past 2 hours


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 924184 posted 08/19/10 11:08 PM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
Paul, didn't you have a FFWD motor... what happened to it?



tyler
2016 Explorer PI
2006 LS430
2012 GX460

Posts: 3855 | From: Cypress, TX | Member Since: 08/07/02 | IP: (98.199.14.23) | Report this post to a Moderator

cheekychimp Galant VR4.org Moderator
Director of Housing and Urban Development, and carbon/kevlar balls


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 924219 posted 08/20/10 02:27 AM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
It's in the other car. I bought another VR4 and I want to do something a little less hardcore this time.



Getting old sucks ... but it sure beats the alternative !!!

Posts: 7331 | From: East Sussex, U.K. | Member Since: 04/19/04 | IP: (116.48.7.162) | Report this post to a Moderator

mountaineerjeff
<3 NJ
1630/2000
1844/2000
181/1000


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 924640 posted 08/21/10 10:10 PM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
ok, so i really didnt want to let this info out, purely because im selfish.

this is what i had planned for my mirage turbo.

if you take a 4g61 crank, and a 4g63 block, long rods, and evo pistons.

You now have a motor with very low overhead. and a red line that that could never be reached. i full built drag head would still top out before the bottom end.

I thought of this because of its application in the mirage. it was being built to run down turbo supras.

now this motor would have a displacement of 1.7 and a rod ratio of 2.1 much higher than any other combos.

the fun part is this can even be taken a step farther and applied to a 4g64 block upping your displacement to 1.8 (maybe 1.9 havent done the math recently) and give you an even higher ratio, and the longest rods possible if used with a higher pin height piston.

I just personally didnt think the extra displacement, or rod ratio was actually needed.

so there the cat is out of the bag. the easiest way to build a motor that will rev to 12000+ for way cheaper than anything else.



We didnt start the fire! Billy Joel:E39A expert
181/1000 half-a$$ rally-fart
1630/2000 Ballin!
1844/2000 unwillingly put in 'storage'
mirage turbo sold to a guy who will wreck it
2012 EVO, too bad its not a Mitsubishi

Posts: 1155 | From: west virginia | Member Since: 10/22/08 | IP: (98.236.97.23) | Report this post to a Moderator

cheekychimp Galant VR4.org Moderator
Director of Housing and Urban Development, and carbon/kevlar balls


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 924802 posted 08/22/10 08:55 PM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
Jeff,

I really appreciate this info, but how do you think this engine will effect the bottom end response. I imagine a 1.7 in a full weight VR4 might be a bit sluggish but going the 4G64 route with the 75mm crank if it really is a 1.9 might be an option with some higher compression pistons. have you done much research into this yet?

Paul.



Getting old sucks ... but it sure beats the alternative !!!

Posts: 7331 | From: East Sussex, U.K. | Member Since: 04/19/04 | IP: (116.48.213.20) | Report this post to a Moderator

mountaineerjeff
<3 NJ
1630/2000
1844/2000
181/1000


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 924824 posted 08/22/10 10:28 PM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
yea ive looked into it pretty hardcore, I was really trying to keep it on the DL but im in the process of selling the mirage, and plan on a bit of a different route with the vr4

alot of slowboys tests dont even show a loss of torque when going to a higher rod ratio. so the torque difference would be less than the difference between a factory 2.4 and 2.0. if you wanted to go to the 2.4 block then you would probably have to get custom pistons at which you could increase the power and CR. but from how i read it seems like to get what you really want you should do the evo pistons in a 63 block. that away you only have to by rods, which you might be able to get used. instead of pistons and rods done custom. and yea you probably will suffer a little down low. but these are gonna be compared to a built 2.0 or a built 2.4 not a stock one. I beleive that when done you will still have much more than stock which is plenty, taking into consideration youre looking into top end. there are give and takes with anything, but what im saying is the loss will still leave you with more eft over than most setups start with



We didnt start the fire! Billy Joel:E39A expert
181/1000 half-a$$ rally-fart
1630/2000 Ballin!
1844/2000 unwillingly put in 'storage'
mirage turbo sold to a guy who will wreck it
2012 EVO, too bad its not a Mitsubishi

Posts: 1155 | From: west virginia | Member Since: 10/22/08 | IP: (98.236.97.23) | Report this post to a Moderator

AWDnoobie
Member
129/2000


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 925079 posted 08/24/10 12:32 AM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
Im not sure if im going to add info that would be usefull, but ill give it a try. Has anyone thought of using a a head from a Hyundai sonata dohc 92 to 96 i think. If im right it has a 1g intake, 2g runners and smaller combustion chamber. Im not sure how well it would work for a long rod stroker, but in my theory it could help for flow and top end.

If my info is bad flame away

Posts: 112 | From: Alberta, Canada | Member Since: 01/13/10 | IP: (68.150.162.61) | Report this post to a Moderator

mountaineerjeff
<3 NJ
1630/2000
1844/2000
181/1000


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 925088 posted 08/24/10 01:01 AM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
this info is not wrong, just slightly off topic. head choice can will and has been argued about forever, we're simply talking about bottom end



We didnt start the fire! Billy Joel:E39A expert
181/1000 half-a$$ rally-fart
1630/2000 Ballin!
1844/2000 unwillingly put in 'storage'
mirage turbo sold to a guy who will wreck it
2012 EVO, too bad its not a Mitsubishi

Posts: 1155 | From: west virginia | Member Since: 10/22/08 | IP: (98.236.81.177) | Report this post to a Moderator

turboaddict
Barnes


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 925632 posted 08/26/10 03:26 AM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
all of this is great in theory but it is alot of work for just running a 16g. in my mirage I am dropping boost from 35psi to 25psi beginning at 6500 and 10psi of boost lost by anything north of 7000rpm. Also please don't mess with the amg manifold if you are going to run an evo3/2g head just use the evo3 intake manifold(and for god sake sell the amg to me:-). also you are going to loose some bottom end with the longer rod. (if I under stand your setup of stock pistons, and aftermarket rods) the reason is the rod angle with the longer rod is not as great and thus torque goes down. this is how you can rev higher; to regain this people were going with the 92-94mm crank to overcome the loss and then some.

Again I am not trying to piss on your campfire but a stock 2.0 will be perfectly fine with what you are trying to accomplish and last for a long time. (it seems that you are trying to hard. or just think too much about what could be (as most of us do). I myself dream of a 4g61t with 11-1 compression on E85 for power and mpg's.

Posts: 162 | From: Omaha, NE | Member Since: 03/14/05 | IP: (72.213.40.166) | Report this post to a Moderator

turboaddict
Barnes


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 925633 posted 08/26/10 03:31 AM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
another thing, there is a big point of diminishing returns on rod-to-stroke, the 4g61 is a a 75mm stroke and a 150mm rod this is 2 to 1 and anything beyond this is a waste of time. Also for reference my jdm 4g61t in my mirage pulled like a freight train to my limiter of 8800.

Posts: 162 | From: Omaha, NE | Member Since: 03/14/05 | IP: (72.213.40.166) | Report this post to a Moderator

mountaineerjeff
<3 NJ
1630/2000
1844/2000
181/1000


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 925802 posted 08/26/10 06:40 PM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
yes there is a point where we will not we the gains of a higher ratio. however that point is above 2.0:1 the point in going to the 2.0 block is to allow a larger bore, along with a common piston. the 2.1:1 ratio that is then achieved is still not 'too high'



We didnt start the fire! Billy Joel:E39A expert
181/1000 half-a$$ rally-fart
1630/2000 Ballin!
1844/2000 unwillingly put in 'storage'
mirage turbo sold to a guy who will wreck it
2012 EVO, too bad its not a Mitsubishi

Posts: 1155 | From: west virginia | Member Since: 10/22/08 | IP: (98.236.97.23) | Report this post to a Moderator

cheekychimp Galant VR4.org Moderator
Director of Housing and Urban Development, and carbon/kevlar balls


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 925956 posted 08/27/10 10:20 AM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
Quoting turboaddict:

all of this is great in theory but it is alot of work for just running a 16g. in my mirage I am dropping boost from 35psi to 25psi beginning at 6500 and 10psi of boost lost by anything north of 7000rpm. Also please don't mess with the amg manifold if you are going to run an evo3/2g head just use the evo3 intake manifold(and for god sake sell the amg to me:-). also you are going to loose some bottom end with the longer rod. (if I under stand your setup of stock pistons, and aftermarket rods) the reason is the rod angle with the longer rod is not as great and thus torque goes down. this is how you can rev higher; to regain this people were going with the 92-94mm crank to overcome the loss and then some.

Again I am not trying to piss on your campfire but a stock 2.0 will be perfectly fine with what you are trying to accomplish and last for a long time. (it seems that you are trying to hard. or just think too much about what could be (as most of us do). I myself dream of a 4g61t with 11-1 compression on E85 for power and mpg's.




I think you make some very good points and I think you are quite correct that at the end of the day, for what I want, the stock rebuild option will work just fine. I feel very strongly however that even though the "don't fix what ain't broke!' philosophy has a lot of merit, if no-one had deviated from the tried and tested path many years ago we would all be using EVO III 16G manifolds and turbos, there would be no strokers or super long rod motors, and this board would have long since become very boring.

Often the end conclusion of discussions like this is far less significant than the information that is spawned as a result of them. I've never heard of a Hyundai Sonata. I don't think I've ever seen one in Asia. But in fact if I want to see the effects of the AMG Cyclone mated to a 2G head this offers me a perfect opportunity to try it out and it's completely reversible. That sort of info is actually pretty awesome.

Also we tend to look at these threads individually, when in fact quite often the information in one can be cross referenced with that of another. Perhaps building a 1.8 litre super long rod 4G64/4G63 hybrid turbo engine doesn't have a great deal of merit, but it has given me a lot of ideas nonetheless. Jeff mentioned above that even taking into account the trade offs a lot of these engines would probably still perform better than a stock 2.0 litre. My 2WD 1.8 Galant GLS in the UK puts out a pathetic 89 hp. There are a lot of insurance liabilities for increasing capacity above that of the stock 1.8 litre capacity over there. But I bet a 4G61 crank in a 4G64 block an AMG Cyclone Manifold and AMG head (plus fuel injection and an 8800 rpm redline) would make close to 150 hp with a decent header and exhaust! I also highly doubt that even if I went for the 1.7 litre 4G61/4G63 combo that the bottom end would be any more soggy than that of the 89 hp stock 4G37.


Edited by cheekychimp (08/27/10 10:28 AM)

Posts: 7331 | From: East Sussex, U.K. | Member Since: 04/19/04 | IP: (116.48.7.162) | Report this post to a Moderator

mountaineerjeff
<3 NJ
1630/2000
1844/2000
181/1000


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 926139 posted 08/28/10 12:17 AM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
exactly
one other thing that you have to remember is that i was planning this engine for a FWD car, where torque isnt needed and top end was a focus for me. the only reason I thought to bring it up was your thought on revs and top end. I believe that the 61/63 combo is a great idea. the side loadings on the pistons will be much lower than a 63. while still being able to use cheap pistons, and u can even use the rods from the 2.1 builds so they are available as well.

as far as awd goes. from what i have learned about strokers, and I have decided to do a long rod 2.4 for my galant. but it will have different goals than I had for the mirage.



We didnt start the fire! Billy Joel:E39A expert
181/1000 half-a$$ rally-fart
1630/2000 Ballin!
1844/2000 unwillingly put in 'storage'
mirage turbo sold to a guy who will wreck it
2012 EVO, too bad its not a Mitsubishi

Posts: 1155 | From: west virginia | Member Since: 10/22/08 | IP: (98.236.97.23) | Report this post to a Moderator

turboaddict
Barnes


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 926140 posted 08/28/10 12:58 AM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
Quoting cheekychimp:

Quoting turboaddict:

all of this is great in theory but it is alot of work for just running a 16g. in my mirage I am dropping boost from 35psi to 25psi beginning at 6500 and 10psi of boost lost by anything north of 7000rpm. Also please don't mess with the amg manifold if you are going to run an evo3/2g head just use the evo3 intake manifold(and for god sake sell the amg to me:-). also you are going to loose some bottom end with the longer rod. (if I under stand your setup of stock pistons, and aftermarket rods) the reason is the rod angle with the longer rod is not as great and thus torque goes down. this is how you can rev higher; to regain this people were going with the 92-94mm crank to overcome the loss and then some.

Again I am not trying to piss on your campfire but a stock 2.0 will be perfectly fine with what you are trying to accomplish and last for a long time. (it seems that you are trying to hard. or just think too much about what could be (as most of us do). I myself dream of a 4g61t with 11-1 compression on E85 for power and mpg's.




I think you make some very good points and I think you are quite correct that at the end of the day, for what I want, the stock rebuild option will work just fine. I feel very strongly however that even though the "don't fix what ain't broke!' philosophy has a lot of merit, if no-one had deviated from the tried and tested path many years ago we would all be using EVO III 16G manifolds and turbos, there would be no strokers or super long rod motors, and this board would have long since become very boring.

Often the end conclusion of discussions like this is far less significant than the information that is spawned as a result of them. I've never heard of a Hyundai Sonata. I don't think I've ever seen one in Asia. But in fact if I want to see the effects of the AMG Cyclone mated to a 2G head this offers me a perfect opportunity to try it out and it's completely reversible. That sort of info is actually pretty awesome.

Also we tend to look at these threads individually, when in fact quite often the information in one can be cross referenced with that of another. Perhaps building a 1.8 litre super long rod 4G64/4G63 hybrid turbo engine doesn't have a great deal of merit, but it has given me a lot of ideas nonetheless. Jeff mentioned above that even taking into account the trade offs a lot of these engines would probably still perform better than a stock 2.0 litre. My 2WD 1.8 Galant GLS in the UK puts out a pathetic 89 hp. There are a lot of insurance liabilities for increasing capacity above that of the stock 1.8 litre capacity over there. But I bet a 4G61 crank in a 4G64 block an AMG Cyclone Manifold and AMG head (plus fuel injection and an 8800 rpm redline) would make close to 150 hp with a decent header and exhaust! I also highly doubt that even if I went for the 1.7 litre 4G61/4G63 combo that the bottom end would be any more soggy than that of the 89 hp stock 4G37.




I agree and as I said I dont want to to stifle anyone's ideas but at the same time spending a bunch of money to get not that great of a return on investment doesn't make sense or cents. I love bench racing and look forward to others ideas. If you were trying to go crazy with this setup I would probably say something different, but if you are only looking for 400whp or less this just seems like alot of extra work. also something you way want to consider is a higher silicon content after market piston, these are harder and dont grow nearly as much, they act more like a stock piston, this may be another answer for ya.

as for the comment about the amg manifold I was just taking a shot I have been looking for one of these for forever with zero luck:-(

what do you have for fuel where your at? is an ethanol base around or no? this may be a avenue to look down for different out of the box thinking. As I said I really want an 11-1 compresstion 1.6liter motor on just e85 and see how far I can this set up. anyway good luck with whatever you decide to try and if I cn think of anything else I will be sure to post it up. I also look forward to seeing the build;-)

Posts: 162 | From: Omaha, NE | Member Since: 03/14/05 | IP: (72.213.40.166) | Report this post to a Moderator

cheekychimp Galant VR4.org Moderator
Director of Housing and Urban Development, and carbon/kevlar balls


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 926144 posted 08/28/10 01:39 AM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
Quote:

what do you have for fuel where your at?




Well the Shell V-Power is supposed to be 98 octane but I have heard stories of 98 being quoted when in fact it is not the RON rating at all so I don't know. There are no ethanol based fuels here at all, however all our taxis and minibuses now run on LPG. Years ago people said LPG (or propane) had a 110 octane value but I have never really heard of anyone making big power on LPG, so again I am not sure.

I did think of putting a big LPG tank in the trunk and cutting a second gas lid in the quarter panel (propane injection with propane fill ups at every gas stop )



Getting old sucks ... but it sure beats the alternative !!!

Posts: 7331 | From: East Sussex, U.K. | Member Since: 04/19/04 | IP: (116.48.252.228) | Report this post to a Moderator

mountaineerjeff
<3 NJ
1630/2000
1844/2000
181/1000


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 926148 posted 08/28/10 01:59 AM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
if you mix 20% V-power with 80% Techron it will give your mitsubishi the power of V-tech



We didnt start the fire! Billy Joel:E39A expert
181/1000 half-a$$ rally-fart
1630/2000 Ballin!
1844/2000 unwillingly put in 'storage'
mirage turbo sold to a guy who will wreck it
2012 EVO, too bad its not a Mitsubishi

Posts: 1155 | From: west virginia | Member Since: 10/22/08 | IP: (98.236.97.23) | Report this post to a Moderator

cheekychimp Galant VR4.org Moderator
Director of Housing and Urban Development, and carbon/kevlar balls


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 926152 posted 08/28/10 02:13 AM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
^ LMFAO ... that would upset the Type R LOL.



Getting old sucks ... but it sure beats the alternative !!!

Posts: 7331 | From: East Sussex, U.K. | Member Since: 04/19/04 | IP: (116.48.252.228) | Report this post to a Moderator

mountaineerjeff
<3 NJ
1630/2000
1844/2000
181/1000


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 926178 posted 08/28/10 09:58 AM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
well see vtech is pretty much the same as a turbo (if you ask a honda guy) so basically your vr4 could be twin charged.



so much for constructive comments



We didnt start the fire! Billy Joel:E39A expert
181/1000 half-a$$ rally-fart
1630/2000 Ballin!
1844/2000 unwillingly put in 'storage'
mirage turbo sold to a guy who will wreck it
2012 EVO, too bad its not a Mitsubishi

Posts: 1155 | From: west virginia | Member Since: 10/22/08 | IP: (98.236.97.23) | Report this post to a Moderator

Justin
Unregistered


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 926256 posted 08/28/10 07:49 PM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post   
Quoting cheekychimp:

I feel very strongly however that even though the "don't fix what ain't broke!' philosophy has a lot of merit, if no-one had deviated from the tried and tested path many years ago we would all be using EVO III 16G manifolds and turbos, there would be no strokers or super long rod motors, and this board would have long since become very boring.





Amen. I say buck the system. Many things that are now considered the norm were once some crazy idea. COP, twin disc clutches, AWD, overhead cams, 6 speed trannies, and much more are all realized ideas.

| | | IP: (68.171.231.18) | Report this post to a Moderator


Pages: 1 | 2
Previous thread Next thread

Extra information
0 registered and 5 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Galant VR4.org Moderator:  curtis, steve, atc250r, jcgalntvr4-244, cheekychimp, jepherz, Rausch, toybreaker, iceman69510, pot, FlyingEagle 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Rating:
Thread views: 11912

Rate this thread


News & Events: News | Events
Galant VR-4: Newbies | General VR4 Discussions | Technical Discussions | How To and Info Archive
Marketplace: Parts For Sale | Cars For Sale | Good Guys | Bad Guys
Community: Members' Showcase

Contact Us | Privacy statement GalantVR-4.org

Generated in 0.225 seconds in which 0.09 seconds were spent on a total of 14 queries. Turbo powered.


Hertz's Galant VR-4 Page